Originally posted by Kandinsky
You all do realise that there's no evidence a historical Jesus existed?

Except for the fact that

"and while scholars further debate what can specifically be known concerning Jesus' character and ministry, essentially all scholars in the
relevant fields agree that the mere historical existence of Jesus can be established using documentary and other evidence."

"Flavius Josephus (c. 37–c. 100), a Jew and Roman citizen who worked under the patronage of the Flavians, wrote the Antiquities of the Jews in 93
AD. In these works, Jesus is mentioned twice. The one directly concerning Jesus has come to be known as the Testimonium Flavianum."

"Pliny the Younger, the provincial governor of Pontus and Bithynia, wrote to Emperor Trajan c. 112 concerning how to deal with Christians, who
refused to worship the emperor, and instead worshiped "Christus"."

"Tacitus (c. 56–c. 117), writing c. 116, included in his Annals a mention of Christianity and "Christus""

"Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus (c. 69–140) wrote the following in his Lives of the Twelve Caesars about riots which broke out in the Jewish community
in Rome under the emperor Claudius:"

"Mara bar Sarapion was a Syrian Stoic.[97] While imprisoned by the Romans, Mara wrote a letter to his son that includes the following text:"

The sources for the historicity of Jesus go on and on and on.

Many of these sources were NON-christian. Romans mostly, being it all happened in a province of Rome...

Seems, there a bit taudry, in that they forgive all, then bend the gender line.

I can see where this comes from, as I'm an on the fence believer; Yeah, I lie, commandment xx.
They do get in there and say the oddest of sorties, which includes the forbidden homosexuality.

Maybe someone responded in this post is trying to make the 'Catholic Million', whereas be it here foreknown there was this 'abuse' see, and the
little boy fell and 'skinned' himshelf. Then, see, they get to eat from the Tree of Life...

yeshua taught that the flesh is a veil that hampers our vision of our true eternal bodies. our eternal bodies are not sexually procreative by
design. although an argument could be advanced that the angels were able to sexually procreate, however, in order to do that, they had to manifest in
a fallen condition. thus suggesting that physical sexual contact is a function of a fallen, degraded state of being. therefore, i do not believe
yeshua had a sex life, nor was he interested in a sex life. his purpose on earth seemed to be focused on an entirely different set of subjects,
relating to evolving above things like sex and other selective functions of the physical body.

consider there are many other teachings, by other wisemen, with similar focus. you can rechannel energy normally expended on sex, into other avenues
of improvement.

Does anyone find both the intellectual integrity, and the depth of character completely disintegrate when the subject of religion, and specifically
that of Jesus is approached?

I mean, come on folks.

It is utterly embarrassing to read through this, and more than that is tells a tragic story of the unbelievable lack of education, insight, empathy
and tact surpassing even the faintest hopes of human decency.

I am sorry, but there is no more evidence to suggest he was gay, than there is to suggest he was a unicorn (to which you are able to suggest equally
as much). But there is a higher truth here for us. Whenever a polarizing subject rears its head, or a paradox is debated, what you get is more of an
indication of the persons debating it, than the subject itself.

For the observant, the joke is indeed on the opinionated, the know-it-alls, the fundamentalists, and the flippant scoffers. You only impress those
like you.

It is too bad that shame has very little to do with the online way of things, because perhaps we would learn to approach serious matters with
understanding, and not complete ignorance, and utter stupidity. I truly wish there was a cost to these things as there once was. In times past, many
of the things said on here would have marked you the village idiot, or at least the asshole to be avoided.

Maybe show some respect to the subject, to yourselves, to those who stand with you, and even to those who who oppose you.

hubby said to me once that he thought it would be very much like yeshua, to appear to each person as the race they most disapproved of (not what
other people think you disapprove of, but what he knows to be a fact, you disapprove of), as a sort of object lesson in the nature of love (not sex).

Originally posted by deinonychus
I am sorry, but there is no more evidence to suggest he was gay, than there is to suggest he was a unicorn (to which you are able to suggest equally
as much). But there is a higher truth here for us. Whenever a polarizing subject rears its head, or a paradox is debated, what you get is more of an
indication of the persons debating it, than the subject itself.

Of course, the bible doesn't teach virtue at all. Why would people go to the bible for virtue when they know it doesn't.

If someone has a male body and a femme spirit (a.k.a jesus), then how would morals ever resolve the issue. They don't. They can't. They never will.
The bible obviously has set it's absolute down in what it doesn't deal with.

I don't think that just because a male is compassionate, understanding and intelligent that makes him gay...

I don't think that that was the claim, nor was the claim that being gay, as such, would ensure that a man was compassionate, understanding, and
intelligent. Elton John reports that he has discerned several qualities in Jesus, among them that Jesus was gay, in EJ's opinion.

As to the merits of that belief, I think it is a tenable view based on the Gospels, especially John. On the other hand, the Gospels don't say,
obviously. I guess it comes down to how well calibrated you think your gaydar is, or Elton John's.

One thing, though. Jesus never let black letter law stand in the way of what he thought was the right thing to do. Black letter says your donkey stays
in the well until sundown on the Sabbath, Jesus says use your common sense and get him out of there, right now.

If Jesus were gay, then, I don't think he would be much impressed by an appeal to the Law. He seemed to favor love, and wasn't overtly fussy about
the forms in which love spontaneously manifests in healthy people and healthy societies.

Personally, if the point of Jesus' mission really was that God should live as a man, then I hope he got some while he was here, since that is an
important part of the human experience. If that was with another man, then so what?

hubby said to me once that he thought it would be very much like yeshua, to appear to each person as the race they most disapproved of (not
what other people think you disapprove of, but what he knows to be a fact, you disapprove of), as a sort of object lesson in the nature of love (not
sex).

I'm not making a case that Jesus didn't exist....nor would I debate it.

I was pointing out that no evidence exists of his physical existence. The 'historicity' (not heard that word since Uni) of Jesus is founded on a
consensus of accounts from after he would have died. No Roman records exist. In your link there isn't a contemporary account of a first-hand meeting
with a physical Jesus. I'm happy to accept that the guy lived...

I was pointing out that it's impossible to draw conclusions about his sexuality. Also that the values are what matter and aren't affected by
sexuality. On probability alone, it's fair to assume he was straight...most people are.

Elton John is a d###. I don't buy any of his records...I'm buying even fewer in future.

what does being gay offer the word? there are no advantages and nothing good that comes from it, its completely useless and there is no future in
being gay... god create man and women for a reason... and if god didnt create us and we were created by aliens, then they wouldnt be happy that their
experiment went wrong and started being gay... total fail

...
Is this a sarcastic post?
I know such blatantly bigoted viewpoints aren't really still floating around in..lemme check...2010. Right?

And are those our only options? God or Aliens?
Mods!! The deny ignorance button's broken!

Maybe he's just not being "politically correct" enough for some portion of the audience.
Is this a sarcastic thread?

Originally posted by eight bits
Personally, if the point of Jesus' mission really was that God should live as a man, then I hope he got some while he was here, since that is an
important part of the human experience. If that was with another man, then so what?

What if His missions was to show the difference between a homosexual female in a male body, and a heterosexual femme in a male body.

He was obviously really not interested in females because He is femme (as the bible says).

well the first adams were men and women. there was no "Eve" yet. so if we were created in an image of something else we call God, and were both
men and women, what part ya think was God's image? the male part or the female part? cause they are called "adam" in the original language. and
this verse is found in the chapter BEFORE the chapter about Eve being taken from Adam's side. Furthermore, God in the original language in these
passages is ELOHIYM (plural, gods)

So God created man (adam) in his [own] image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

that text is preceeded by Let US make man (adam) in OUR image. the confusion is pretty easy to remove:

men and women were created in the image of the Elohiym (plural), and were collectively known as "adam". later, Eve is created, which is a real
puzzler, because originally, woman was created in the image of the gods, just as man was ,and they were both adams.

The Above Top Secret Web site is a wholly owned social content community of The Above Network, LLC.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.